[jillybean]

This needs it's own thread, I hope I didn't omit anything.

---

IMP

mikeh, on 2026-May-29, 16:22, said:

Many expert and some non-expert pairs have agreements here. I play good-bad 2N in these sequences, although technically bad-good is probably superior. G-B means that if I bid 2N I have a hand that wants to compete to the 3 level but isn’t a strong hand. Since 2S is available, 2N denies spades. It will be either a minor 2 suiter or a diamond one suiter.

The corollary is that a direct 3 level bid shows significant extras. It’s not forcing, but it’s strong. So if we are playing G-B, I could bid 3D.

Does that mean that I should bid 3D? The problem is that I don’t need a diamond fit to make 5D and I am not looking for partner to bid 3N with a heart stopper…if he did, I wouldn’t know whether to sit or run, though I think sitting will very often be a disaster.

This is all moot anyway: most players don’t have GB or BG available.

In which case 3D could be far weaker than this hand, being purely competitive. So the choice is 4D or 5D. 5D is just too much for me. I’ll bid 4D and hope that partner evaluates well.

pescetom, on 2026-May-30, 01:44, said:

Interesting, thanks.
Why do you think B-G is probably superior?
How would it work here?

mikeh, on 2026-May-30, 12:42, said:

On many hands there is no real difference. But here’s an example where bad good often works better:

Opener has a decent 5=5 minors hand. 1D (1H) x (2H)

Opener wants to compete but doesn’t want to have partner play him for a good hand. So, playing GB, he bids 2N. This asks partner to bid his preferred minor, unless he has lots of extras in which case he does something forcing. Opener may have both minors or may have a long diamond suit.

So far, so good. But LHO bids 3H, passed around to opener. Maybe responder has something like 4=2=2=5 without the values to have bid 2C over 1H (there are some who’d double even with a good hand but I prefer to show my values and shape via 2C then spades). If he has that hand, we need to compete in clubs much of the time. But we can hardly bid 4C on a 5=5 nice minimum when we might have at most a 5=3 fit playing at the 4 level with roughly half the deck.

Playing weak must speak,,,the title of a good article on this, found in The Bridge World years ago, we bid 3C over 2H and leave the rest to partner, unless he involves us again. With the good hand we bid 2N because with the good hand we’re prepared to bid again if they bid 3H….and (often but it depends on our hand) do something over 4H. Not only are we more likely to have 4 level safety when we have extras but our having extras will sometimes mean that the opps do not have the values to keep bidding.

This is just one example

Picture 1D (1S) x (2S). We have hearts. With a minimum, but one worth competing on, we are far better off being able to bid 3H than having to bid 2N because 3H would show extras. We bid 2N with a weak hand that wants to compete, and LHO should strain to bid 3S, often really screwing us in the auction. Responder knows only that we want to compete…but is that because we fit hearts or because we have both minors or because we have long diamonds?

Yes, we could bid 4H on really good hands (and 3S with even better) but maybe we don’t have game when we hold some 15-16 off shape hand with 4 weak hearts.

One can construct hands and auctions that make one version look better than the other, but I’ve been persuaded that B-G is technically best. Having said that, as is often the case, the gains (or losses) are rare and inertia sets in. In my main partnership we are constantly tweaking an already very complex system and this choice of 2N uses simply isn’t something that’s actually run into problems at the table and we both remember our method, so we’ve never looked at changing it. But it’s like upside down attitude. If one were starting with a blank slate, it’d be silly to play standard attitude but if that’s what your partner is used to and is reluctant to change…well, most of the time it’s irrelevant what you play.

mike777, on 2026-May-30, 13:11, said:

3D seems ok playing good bad 2nt

4D ok also
North will not pass in any case

DavidKok, on 2026-May-30, 13:13, said:

For G/B 2NT, which I currently do not play, we distinguish four strength ranges.

• Weak - passes. This is obvious, and often left unsaid, but some hands have extra shape but can't brave the 3-level.
  
• Competitive.
  
• Constructive.
  
• Game forcing.

I think putting 2+4 through 2NT is sensible, so that you have a clear split range. This goes against the advice from mikeh to put 3 in 2NT, and I am not sure if some game forcing hands may also start with 2NT.

At any rate I've had few wins and frequent losses playing G/B, and I am not fond of the convention.

P_Marlowe, on 2026-May-31, 00:36, said:

I like the way we introduced the bid:
2NT in competitive auctions is always art., and given that we played only G/B it was always G/B.
Putting the goods hand into 2NT keeps the original meaning of rebidding openers suit, NF, constructive,
whatever.

You may even find ways to use the bid to describe hands, that are more offensive in the context of bidding,
than you believe.

After you got comfortable, you can add. additional meanings of the bid.
The only think to remember: 2NT is always art.

mikeh, on 2026-May-31, 09:35, said:

In my main partnership we have rules. 2N is GB only by opener. Never by any other seat. There have to have been 3 (or 4) non-passes in the round before 2N is bid. Iow it’s never GB if there have been two passes in the 4 bidding opportunities leading to opener’s call. And nobody has prempted. And nobody has bid a strong 1N….which means either opener or one of the opponents.

So 1D (2H) x (P) ? It’s opener’s turn, check. Three non-passes in previous 4 opportunities, check. But someone preempted so 2N is natural.

There are times when one needs a natural 2N and our rules allow us to know when that is the case. I think this issue is the main reason GB gets screwed up on occasion.

Saying that 2N is always artificial in competitive auctions simply creates ambiguity while eliminating an often useful natural bid.

[Flem72]

I once set out to catalog possible auctions where GB might apply. I quit--there are far too many. Even though it is always a useful tool for distinguishing good-in-context calls from poor-in-context calls, you need constraints.

[P_Marlowe]

Flem72, on 2026-June-02, 09:05, said:

I once set out to catalog possible auctions where GB might apply. I quit--there are far too many. Even though it is always a useful tool for distinguishing good-in-context calls from poor-in-context calls, you need constraints.

I also think, that having the option to send a pos. come on signal to p is useful in lots of situations,
even if you think he cant have anything. Due to this playing 2NT as always G/B in comp. seq. works,
... eventually one will discover seq., situations, which asks for different meanings of 2NT, e.g. 2-places /
aka scrambling, xfer to whatver, maybe even nat (although we dropped this), and if you do this, than the rule
will limit the hand that can use G/B, your constrains come automatic.
But before you add. complexity getting to know the G/B mechanism into your thinking, req. time.

Sending the a pos. come on signal is simpler and easier to understand for p, if the pos. hand go through 2NT.

[mike777]

With opponents getting into our auctions so often, playing some version of GB2NT is helpful.

Just agree on something.
You can always improve on your version with practice. It does come up

[paulg]

I used to play GB2NT but we gave it up for a number of reasons:

• We struggled to find a good definition of good and bad
• When you showed a bad hand, partner would want to compete if you had the right bad hand but not otherwise. For example, when respond had five clubs and a singleton diamond, then you want to compete if partner has a minor two-suiter but not when they have a diamond single-suiter.
• The problem of competing was worse when the opponents bid again

So now we just tend to bid with strong or distributional hands and we find this suits our style a lot better. It might help that we only play IMPs, not matchpoints.

[mycroft]

I'm intrigued to see I'm not the only one. I really, actually thought it was a block in my mind that made it impossible to resolve a "simple, obvious" concept.

Having said that, the answers to that linked post (DavidKok, sfi) still, to me, seem reasonable (in the "90% correct, 90% of the time" and "you may wish for a different agreement on this hand, but at least both of you know what your agreement *is*" senses).